3 ms·

> Why wouldn't you want to do it? Are you fucking serious? The web is always being trumpeted as "works everywhere". But now you want to tie the web to specific

> Why wouldn't you want to do it? Are you fucking serious? The web is always being trumpeted as "works everywhere". But now you want to tie the web to specific GPU drivers? > Same can happen when you install some non Web application that requires it (games?) You can use the web on a lot of devices that you can't install local applications on. > I don't see how Web or non Web makes any difference Perhaps you should look into that, because problems are inevitable and you better fix that.

shmerl 10y ago
> The web is always being trumpeted as "works everywhere". This isn't just "The Web". It's a Web interface for intense graphics usage. Expecting it to work if the user doesn't have working drivers is beyond silly. > You can use the web on a lot of devices that you can't install local applications on. And that doesn't mean you have full capabilities there. If user has no control, and vendor doesn't care to keep it up to date as well, I doubt browser makers can do anything to remedy such cases. They'd just blacklist certain driver combinations (that's already the case for the reference). Such users would contemplate either using a normal system, or skipping such applications on their un-updateable / broken one.
- stephenr 10y ago
  > Expecting it to work if the user doesn't have working drivers is beyond silly. It isn't just about working drivers, it's about a specific version of working drivers. Microsoft don't provide Vulkan support on Windows, it's provided by certain GPU drivers, which is pretty much guaranteed to be less than those that support e.g. DirectX on your average PC. > that doesn't mean you have full capabilities there. The point of this WG is to have powerful 3d capabilities using different underlying libraries, which maximises the potential to have the capability on different platforms. You seem to revel in the idea that certain users can't use 3d-based web applications because they don't want to or can't install specific vulcan-supporting drivers. > If user has no control, and vendor doesn't care to keep it up to date as well, I doubt browser makers can do anything to remedy such cases. You're somehow confusing "having a Vulkan supporting driver" with "up to date".
  - shmerl 10y ago
    I assume you are talking about cases of drivers not being up to date. The reason it's relevant, is because all these new APIs including Vulkan are relatively new. So even if hardware has such capabilities, drivers for it can be lacking because user didn't keep the system / drivers up to date. I don't see how browser makers can fix that, besides warning users that their drivers are too old. As time goes on, this will be less of an issue. Transitional periods are always more complex. Again, likely use cases for such APIs are intensive graphics applications like games. So users who are interested in that usually are aware, that it's a bad idea to use outdated drivers. So again, this isn't very different with Web or non Web cases.
    - stephenr 10y ago
      > I assume you are talking about cases of drivers not being up to date. No, I'm talking about users even having the unofficial vulkan-supporting drivers installed (on Windows). Users aren't going to suddenly get Vulkan support in a driver update from Windows/Microsoft Update. > I don't see how browser makers can fix that, besides warning users that their drivers are too old. Try to read this carefully, I've mentioned it several times: The point of this WG is to provide an API layer on top of a range of low-level GPU libraries. For Windows (where Vulkan support is possible but not practical due to the unofficial nature of Vulkan supporting drivers) the most common API library that browsers would use, is DirectX, which is provided and supported by Microsoft, across a vast range of hardware. No one insists that all browser vendors use the same TLS library, or the same DOM library, or even the same JavaScript engine. They just (aim to) support the same standards, usually building on things already available from the OS. If you still can't grasp this, I have to assume you're simply trolling.
      - shmerl 10y ago
        > Users aren't going to suddenly get Vulkan support in a driver update from Windows/Microsoft Update. They aren't likely to get updates for DX either, let's say if they are using Windows 7. They won't get DX12, right? So again, there isn't anything browser makers can do about cases of outdated drivers, besides warning the user (if they rely on such drivers). If users can fix that (by updating drivers / system), good. If not, users can skip those applications. > Try to read this carefully, I've mentioned it several times: The point of this WG is to provide an API layer on top of a range of low-level GPU libraries. Yes. This assumes 1. those libraries are installed, and 2. they have certain minimal required capabilities. And browser makers have no control over it. Only user has (or in worse cases - vendor, if the system is all locked up). So it's only a natural thing to expect, for browsers to warn the user, if minimal requirements aren't met (in whatever way).
- threeseed 10y ago
  You seem to be wanting to expose the messed up world that is high end PC gaming to the rest of the web. That is quite delusional and I would be thrilled to have Apple standing up for ordinary users in fighting any such move. The aim of the web is to just work and then as a lower priority work well.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    Gaming has nothing to do with the cause of the mess. The mess stems from the likes of MS and Apple not supporting common cross platform APIs. There is no one but them to blame for that. Apple want to stand up for the user and fix it? Let them support Vulkan. Oh, wait... They don't really want to.

shmerl 10y ago

> The web is always being trumpeted as "works everywhere". This isn't just "The Web". It's a Web interface for intense graphics usage. Expecting it to work if the user doesn't have working drivers is beyond silly. > You can use the web on a lot of devices that you can't install local applications on. And that doesn't mean you have full capabilities there. If user has no control, and vendor doesn't care to keep it up to date as well, I doubt browser makers can do anything to remedy such cases. They'd just blacklist certain driver combinations (that's already the case for the reference). Such users would contemplate either using a normal system, or skipping such applications on their un-updateable / broken one.

stephenr 10y ago
> Expecting it to work if the user doesn't have working drivers is beyond silly. It isn't just about working drivers, it's about a specific version of working drivers. Microsoft don't provide Vulkan support on Windows, it's provided by certain GPU drivers, which is pretty much guaranteed to be less than those that support e.g. DirectX on your average PC. > that doesn't mean you have full capabilities there. The point of this WG is to have powerful 3d capabilities using different underlying libraries, which maximises the potential to have the capability on different platforms. You seem to revel in the idea that certain users can't use 3d-based web applications because they don't want to or can't install specific vulcan-supporting drivers. > If user has no control, and vendor doesn't care to keep it up to date as well, I doubt browser makers can do anything to remedy such cases. You're somehow confusing "having a Vulkan supporting driver" with "up to date".
- shmerl 10y ago
  I assume you are talking about cases of drivers not being up to date. The reason it's relevant, is because all these new APIs including Vulkan are relatively new. So even if hardware has such capabilities, drivers for it can be lacking because user didn't keep the system / drivers up to date. I don't see how browser makers can fix that, besides warning users that their drivers are too old. As time goes on, this will be less of an issue. Transitional periods are always more complex. Again, likely use cases for such APIs are intensive graphics applications like games. So users who are interested in that usually are aware, that it's a bad idea to use outdated drivers. So again, this isn't very different with Web or non Web cases.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    > I assume you are talking about cases of drivers not being up to date. No, I'm talking about users even having the unofficial vulkan-supporting drivers installed (on Windows). Users aren't going to suddenly get Vulkan support in a driver update from Windows/Microsoft Update. > I don't see how browser makers can fix that, besides warning users that their drivers are too old. Try to read this carefully, I've mentioned it several times: The point of this WG is to provide an API layer on top of a range of low-level GPU libraries. For Windows (where Vulkan support is possible but not practical due to the unofficial nature of Vulkan supporting drivers) the most common API library that browsers would use, is DirectX, which is provided and supported by Microsoft, across a vast range of hardware. No one insists that all browser vendors use the same TLS library, or the same DOM library, or even the same JavaScript engine. They just (aim to) support the same standards, usually building on things already available from the OS. If you still can't grasp this, I have to assume you're simply trolling.
    - shmerl 10y ago
      > Users aren't going to suddenly get Vulkan support in a driver update from Windows/Microsoft Update. They aren't likely to get updates for DX either, let's say if they are using Windows 7. They won't get DX12, right? So again, there isn't anything browser makers can do about cases of outdated drivers, besides warning the user (if they rely on such drivers). If users can fix that (by updating drivers / system), good. If not, users can skip those applications. > Try to read this carefully, I've mentioned it several times: The point of this WG is to provide an API layer on top of a range of low-level GPU libraries. Yes. This assumes 1. those libraries are installed, and 2. they have certain minimal required capabilities. And browser makers have no control over it. Only user has (or in worse cases - vendor, if the system is all locked up). So it's only a natural thing to expect, for browsers to warn the user, if minimal requirements aren't met (in whatever way).
threeseed 10y ago
You seem to be wanting to expose the messed up world that is high end PC gaming to the rest of the web. That is quite delusional and I would be thrilled to have Apple standing up for ordinary users in fighting any such move. The aim of the web is to just work and then as a lower priority work well.
- shmerl 10y ago
  Gaming has nothing to do with the cause of the mess. The mess stems from the likes of MS and Apple not supporting common cross platform APIs. There is no one but them to blame for that. Apple want to stand up for the user and fix it? Let them support Vulkan. Oh, wait... They don't really want to.